Last time I looked (which wasn't that recently) Honda was the largest exporter of US made cars. Apparently, even if the average American doesn't want to drive in "underpowered plastic shitboxes loaded down with tons of safety equipment to make up for it", the rest of the world seems to prefer it.
By the time any new nuclear power plants get online it will be halfpast too late? Ten years minimum for current designs, longer for better designs that require some R&D.
Hell, even loans to poor people to buy high efficiency light bulbs, to be paid back by a charge on the electric bill, which would still be lower than with incandescents; let alone similar arrangements for making efficiency improvements in other energy utilization like heating. For a lot of people the upfront cost of energy efficiency is insurmountable and nobody is going to give them a regular loan on the collateral of the money they will save on their monthly bills, but if it is tied together like this so the money saved goes directly into paying off the loan that seems less risky.
You assumed that Obama was going to have the government force the insurance companies to keep open plans that they want to shut down because you'd like to keep it open; and not only that, you're disappointed and angry that he didn't? Yeah, there's a conservative small government less regulation position that's fully in sync with the Tea Party. Hey, I want the policy I had 30 years ago back. No copay and cost $30 a month. Don't know why the Republicans let the company drop it.
Nobody's "forcing insurance companies to cancel medical policies that people had already been already buying for decades." They're grandfathered in. The companies are cancelling them because they want to. Presumably they see enough current customers bailing out for the exchanges that it's not worth it to keep the policy on the books for ten people.
Exactly. While manufacture and sale of a car, for instance, results in further benefit to the economy as somebody gets the mobility to get a job or a better job, to shop, to spend money on leisure, etc military expenditures are either parked waiting for conflict, involved in a conflict waiting to either get destroyed or parked again, or reaching obsolence and scrapped. Good business for the manufacturer, but minimal multiplier effect on the economy. They're kind of the ultimate luxury good, rather than part of the utilitarian economy; even to the point that there's no well defined demand that can be filled so that any more would go unsold, the demand is determined solely by how much cash is available, or how far into debt the purchaser wants to go. This isn't exactly new to people who read economics texts or articles, even those by the WSJ or the Cato Institute. The difference is that right wing economists make the assumption that the effect on the economy of the government building a road or a school is the same as the effect of building a cruise missile; but I've never heard anybody say anything like "business has sure picked up since they built that new cruise missile between here and the city". And of course the lowest strata of the right wing which subscribes to their authority figures' belief that government spending is bad and building a road is a waste of money if the government does it instead of a private company, but they go off on their own tangent with the fictitious belief that military spending is economically beneficial, not like that darned government spending.
The argument was that the war(s) in the Middle East was keeping the damage from terrorism over there. The truth is that it was keeping the damage from the bottomless incompetence of the Bush administration over there. If they'd have dedicated themselves to establishing a new improved power grid we'd still be trying to put out the flames.
Your publications are judged by how many other publications cite them as references; there even exists the Science Citation Index which tabulates this for every published paper. Nobody is going to cite the second paper, which says "yeah, we tried it too, and it really does work!", even though such papers would in fact serve a useful purpose. So, for the average overworked underpaid researcher scrabbling for an ever shrinking pool of grant money, writing such papers is just hampering your own career.
Thus the rise of entities like the Cochrane Review which assemble the often confusing mass of publications in a specific field of medicine, evaluate the relative quality of each, and come to some conclusion about what the "truth" probably is, or whether there is no clarity at this point.
Note also that, as in other narrow fields, those on the inside have an idea of who's good and who's a hack, which laundry tends not to be laundered in the public sink.
"Obama tried to take total control" Yes, by adopting a plan written by Bob Dole and some other senators based on Massachusetts' Romneycare based on the Heritage Foundation plan from 1989, with Lieberman demanding no public option and the Republicans demanding no tax money go to funding it. He should never have chosen that font for the login page, needs way too many GPU cycles to render.
You need to state your criteria a priori. Scientists don't do experiments so that kibitzers can look at the results a posteriori and state solemnly "nope, I'm still not convinced" as though that meant something. In this case your qualifier of "statistically significant" warming lacks anyiindication of what level of significance you are using.
It is quite easy to calculate the variance of the measurement and predict a priori that warming of the estimated amount would not reach the commonly accepted value of p (.05) over a period of 17 years. Thirty years is a commonly cited time frame for warming to be statistically significant at this level; so your failed prediction is a straw creation of your own mind. Meanwhile, you can see quite the positive trend over the 17 years of your interest, just as with the previous years, despite the yearly noise. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Realists.gif In fact, statistics works against you in this matter. Your hypothesis would be that the temperature had been rising but had stopped recently (unless you are dropping back to the "the warming isn't real" that was once so popular). I.e. that the current flat spot is significant, in that it literally signifies a change in the process which is generating these temperature measurements, while the CO2 process has not changed. To disprove this hypothesis it is sufficient to demonstrate that the current flat spot is not statistically significantly different from the measurements seen in the past, and that is trivially easy. http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Skeptics10.gif
Yeah eliminate public funding of research because politicians have opinions and might attach strings. Because of course corporations like GM or BP or IBM are not only dying to spend shareholders' profits to investigate the process of ribosomal assembly in facultative anaerobes, for instance, but also their executives are known for having no preconceived opinions or ever linking payment to achieving particular results. As we all know, anything a for profit entity says is true, that's why you should believe anything you see in an ad.
Eliminate all government undertakings! End creeping socialism now! As our national motto says, "E pluribus unum", meaning "Every man for himself!"
But early introduction to cow's milk would seem to be linked to less breast feeding, which is known to be a signifanct source of immunity for babies. So is cow's milk the cause or is breast feeding the preventive?
Slashdot Mirror
Last time I looked (which wasn't that recently) Honda was the largest exporter of US made cars. Apparently, even if the average American doesn't want to drive in "underpowered plastic shitboxes loaded down with tons of safety equipment to make up for it", the rest of the world seems to prefer it.
By the time any new nuclear power plants get online it will be halfpast too late? Ten years minimum for current designs, longer for better designs that require some R&D.
Hell, even loans to poor people to buy high efficiency light bulbs, to be paid back by a charge on the electric bill, which would still be lower than with incandescents; let alone similar arrangements for making efficiency improvements in other energy utilization like heating.
For a lot of people the upfront cost of energy efficiency is insurmountable and nobody is going to give them a regular loan on the collateral of the money they will save on their monthly bills, but if it is tied together like this so the money saved goes directly into paying off the loan that seems less risky.
You assumed that Obama was going to have the government force the insurance companies to keep open plans that they want to shut down because you'd like to keep it open; and not only that, you're disappointed and angry that he didn't? Yeah, there's a conservative small government less regulation position that's fully in sync with the Tea Party. Hey, I want the policy I had 30 years ago back. No copay and cost $30 a month. Don't know why the Republicans let the company drop it.
As a Republican I can tell you that government is bad. Elect me and I'll prove it.
Nobody's "forcing insurance companies to cancel medical policies that people had already been already buying for decades." They're grandfathered in. The companies are cancelling them because they want to. Presumably they see enough current customers bailing out for the exchanges that it's not worth it to keep the policy on the books for ten people.
Exactly. While manufacture and sale of a car, for instance, results in further benefit to the economy as somebody gets the mobility to get a job or a better job, to shop, to spend money on leisure, etc military expenditures are either parked waiting for conflict, involved in a conflict waiting to either get destroyed or parked again, or reaching obsolence and scrapped. Good business for the manufacturer, but minimal multiplier effect on the economy. They're kind of the ultimate luxury good, rather than part of the utilitarian economy; even to the point that there's no well defined demand that can be filled so that any more would go unsold, the demand is determined solely by how much cash is available, or how far into debt the purchaser wants to go.
This isn't exactly new to people who read economics texts or articles, even those by the WSJ or the Cato Institute. The difference is that right wing economists make the assumption that the effect on the economy of the government building a road or a school is the same as the effect of building a cruise missile; but I've never heard anybody say anything like "business has sure picked up since they built that new cruise missile between here and the city".
And of course the lowest strata of the right wing which subscribes to their authority figures' belief that government spending is bad and building a road is a waste of money if the government does it instead of a private company, but they go off on their own tangent with the fictitious belief that military spending is economically beneficial, not like that darned government spending.
The argument was that the war(s) in the Middle East was keeping the damage from terrorism over there. The truth is that it was keeping the damage from the bottomless incompetence of the Bush administration over there. If they'd have dedicated themselves to establishing a new improved power grid we'd still be trying to put out the flames.
Hell I've seen trucks that couldn't turn around in Rhode Island.
Didn't work out so well for 50% of the arms racers. And the " winning" side is just the one which got bankrupted slower.
Nice thing about undetectable weapons is that you don't actually have to have any, just say you do.
Yeah, why are they all wasting their time developing things like cheap efficient solar power, what the hell demand will there be for that?
Your publications are judged by how many other publications cite them as references; there even exists the Science Citation Index which tabulates this for every published paper. Nobody is going to cite the second paper, which says "yeah, we tried it too, and it really does work!", even though such papers would in fact serve a useful purpose. So, for the average overworked underpaid researcher scrabbling for an ever shrinking pool of grant money, writing such papers is just hampering your own career.
Thus the rise of entities like the Cochrane Review which assemble the often confusing mass of publications in a specific field of medicine, evaluate the relative quality of each, and come to some conclusion about what the "truth" probably is, or whether there is no clarity at this point.
Note also that, as in other narrow fields, those on the inside have an idea of who's good and who's a hack, which laundry tends not to be laundered in the public sink.
Assume for argument's sake that 80% of science is crap. Big deal; 80% of all human endeavour is crap.
Scalablity is always an issue, and no test can accurately predict what is going to happen when 10, 000, 000 logins drop by.
http://highscalability.com/blog/2007/11/13/friendster-lost-lead-because-of-a-failure-to-scale.html
Must be new to the planet.
Why would we want to put a website on the moon?
Republicans refuse to admit that they created them both in the first place
"Obama tried to take total control"
Yes, by adopting a plan written by Bob Dole and some other senators based on Massachusetts' Romneycare based on the Heritage Foundation plan from 1989, with Lieberman demanding no public option and the Republicans demanding no tax money go to funding it.
He should never have chosen that font for the login page, needs way too many GPU cycles to render.
You need to state your criteria a priori. Scientists don't do experiments so that kibitzers can look at the results a posteriori and state solemnly "nope, I'm still not convinced" as though that meant something. In this case your qualifier of "statistically significant" warming lacks anyiindication of what level of significance you are using.
It is quite easy to calculate the variance of the measurement and predict a priori that warming of the estimated amount would not reach the commonly accepted value of p (.05) over a period of 17 years. Thirty years is a commonly cited time frame for warming to be statistically significant at this level; so your failed prediction is a straw creation of your own mind. Meanwhile, you can see quite the positive trend over the 17 years of your interest, just as with the previous years, despite the yearly noise.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Realists.gif
In fact, statistics works against you in this matter. Your hypothesis would be that the temperature had been rising but had stopped recently (unless you are dropping back to the "the warming isn't real" that was once so popular). I.e. that the current flat spot is significant, in that it literally signifies a change in the process which is generating these temperature measurements, while the CO2 process has not changed. To disprove this hypothesis it is sufficient to demonstrate that the current flat spot is not statistically significantly different from the measurements seen in the past, and that is trivially easy.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Skeptics10.gif
Yeah eliminate public funding of research because politicians have opinions and might attach strings. Because of course corporations like GM or BP or IBM are not only dying to spend shareholders' profits to investigate the process of ribosomal assembly in facultative anaerobes, for instance, but also their executives are known for having no preconceived opinions or ever linking payment to achieving particular results. As we all know, anything a for profit entity says is true, that's why you should believe anything you see in an ad.
Eliminate all government undertakings! End creeping socialism now! As our national motto says, "E pluribus unum", meaning "Every man for himself!"
Are u grik?
But early introduction to cow's milk would seem to be linked to less breast feeding, which is known to be a signifanct source of immunity for babies. So is cow's milk the cause or is breast feeding the preventive?
Back when the autoimmune link was first published, it was Epstein-Barr that was linked.